The Greek-Latin Dispute Over the Communion of Infants*1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 J S Studia eologica Varsaviensia UKSW The Greek-Latin Dispute Over the Communion of Infants*1 e problem of the infant communion, which in the Catholic-Orthodox con- frontation is rather secondary, has not yet been elaborated on. However, it is an interesting example for the history of theology of how the same theological problem can have different contents and functions, depending on the historical context in which it is raised. Starting Point of the Dispute e communion of infants was abandoned during the $%&' century in the West- ern Church. is was the result of a new Eucharistic spirituality initiated by a reaction to the Berengarian doctrine. e guiding principle of this spirituality was to emphasize the truth about concomitance, and its most characteristic fea- ture was an increase in respect for the saints. e cessation of the communion of infants was motivated by the danger of unintentional insult, which lasts as long as the child is not able to distinguish the Eucharist from ordinary bread. e Eastern Church did not experience a similar reaction, which of course increased mutual differences in spirituality and Eucharistic customs. e oldest text on the infant communion dispute comes from the famous Libellus de erroribus Armenorum, the official author of which is Pope Benedict XII ($%%*-$%*+), while the actual authors were the two Latinising Armenian bishops. ey counted $$0 Armenian heresies, superstitions and abuses. e publication of this magazine by the Pope provoked a lively reaction in the Arme- nian Church. e pleas were mostly generalised and exaggerated, included in the form of accusations. e answer to these pleas was taken care of by the synod * STV $3($405)+. 319 Jacek Salij 2 in Sish ($%*+), convened especially for this purpose. e Synod’s explanations are factual and respectful of the Holy See, but at the same time there is much regret in them, especially because of accusations that are particularly unjust or absurd. As for the communion of infants, the Armenians were accused not so much of the mere fact as of binding it to a false doctrine of baptism: that they make the importance of this sacrament dependent on both Confirmation and the Eucharist being given. e Synod in Sish, responding to this accusation, confirmed the custom of giving three sacraments to infants at the same time, but rejected the main accusation as an unjustified insinuation9. e Latin accusation – albeit formulated in a less conciliatory spirit – had a basis in reality. In any case, it is a fact that Gregory Dattivensis (deceased $*$$), who acted a little later and who significantly reinforced anti-Roman tenden- cies in the Armenian Church, openly accused Latin people that their deceased children do not receive salvation because a;er baptism they do not receive communion<. In addition, giving all three sacraments of initiation to infants helped to create an awareness that baptism could only be given by priests. In the correspondence between Pope Clement VI and the Catholicoi of Armenians a;er the synod in Sish, we find, among other things, the question whether the Armenians recognise the validity of baptism given by a non-priest=. is question has at least two aspects, practical and theoretical. In practice, baptism and priesthood can be so closely connected that laity do not dare to give this sacrament even to a dying child. eoretically, although this is not a necessary consequence of this state of affairs, the validity of baptism given by a priest may not be questioned>. In the letter of Clement VI of +4 September $%?$, there is a reference to a previously issued order of the Pope for the Armenian Church 9 Mansi, vol. +? col. $+%3. < C. Galanus, Conciliationis Ecclesiae Armenae cum Romana , vol. +, Rome $33$, ?4@. = O. Raynaldus, Annales ecclesiastici , vol. $3, Coloniae Agr. $34$, %$*. > Such voices appeared e.g. in older Greek theology, and their source were former canonical regulations reserving communion only for priests and bishops. For example, this is decided by the can. *0 of Apostolic Canons. In: luris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et monumenta (publ. B. Pitra), vol. $, Rome $53* +%. A similar provision is contained in the Ap- ostolic Constitutions, book %, chap. $% n, where a non-priest who dared to baptise was even compared to the sons of Korah. Ibid., +%?. Photius only questioned the validity of baptism given by someone who pretends to be a priest, but he considered baptism given by a lay person for someone in mortal danger to be important. Letter to Leon Archbishop of Calabria (PG. vol. $@+, col. 00* n.). In the compendium of synodal canons prepared in $%%3, M. Blastaris considered every baptism given by a priest to be doubtful and ordered to repeat it. Syntagma alphabeticum (PG, vol. $** col. $$@5). 320 3 The Greek-Latin Dispute Over the Communion of Infants to stop giving communion to infantsN. is would be Rome’s first formal inter- vention in this matter. e Florentine Council took a different, more tolerant stance in the dis- pute over the communion of infants. e formula of the union proposed by the Latin side included the demand to renounce heresy and total tolerance for other differences. As a result of the discussion, the Greeks adopted the position of the Romans on three traditionally controversial issues: the truth about the origin of the Holy Spirit a Patre Filioque, the primacy of the Pope, and the doctrine of Purgatory. e Romans, on the other hand, treated the union not as a return of those who had gone astray, but as a reconciliation of opposing brothers, the sons of one mother ChurchQ. However, it is not known whether Florence dealt with differences consid- ered to be non-heretical. e preserved files of the Council are silent on this sub- ject; however, some data indicate that this issue was the subject of the Council’s discussions. Mansi, for example, signals the opinion expressed by St. Antoninus, a member of the Council, although not yet as a Florentine bishop. Among the eastern rites, which do not contain heresy, although they differ from the rites of the western church, Antoninus also mentions the communion of infantsY. His statement shows a relationship with the Apostolic Constitution of Ac- cepimus nuper of Leon X of $5 May $?+$, which contains the same list of Greek separationsZ. In this document, the Pope strongly defends the Eastern rite in connection with the Latin bishops of the Ionian Sea islands. Leon X states that the criticism of the Greeks on account of their distinctiveness is incom- patible with the findings of the Florence Council. is would argue in favour of the existence of a conciliar document, which is unknown today in this case: probably from there both Antoninus and Leon X drew up a list of approved Greek separations. Contrary to St. Antoninus, the Constitution does not make the slightest allusion about the alleged superiority of Latin over Greek rites. Its general tone indicates that the Pope recognises the equivalence of Greek rites rather than just tolerating them. e classical positions of eastern theology were first defined by St. Simeon of essaloniki and the Nilus of Rhodes. Simeon (deceased $*+4) represents the intransigent direction. His Dialogue in Christo adversus omnes haereses is an N O. Raynaldus, op. cit., %$?. Q Union bullae of 3 July $*%4, in: Documenta Concilii Florentini de unione Orientalium (publ. G. Hofmann), vol. $, Rome $4%? h. $3 n. Y Mansi, vol. %$, col. $5$+. Z Monumenta Ucrainae Historica , vol. $%, Rome $40% 5% n. (in short: MUH). 321 Jacek Salij 4 extensive argument against the Latins. It culminates in a several-century process initiated by the Constantinople synod of 34+ (called in Trullo), the formation of classical anti-Latin polemics of the Greeks. e arguments used there still constitute an iron repertoire of Orthodox polemics with Catholicism. In removing infants from communion, Simeon sees above all the risk of their loss of salvation_. In his work De sacramentis , he made this allegation particularly harshly clear9`. Nilus, Metropolitan of Rhodes, living one generation before Simeon, spoke more gently on the same subject. Referring to can. 5* of the Synod in Trullo , which refers to the communion of infants, he points out that no canon hinders children’s access to the holy table. Nilus of Rhodes, however, does not go so far as to claim that by refusing it to children eternal salvation was closed to them in this way99. Comparing the positions of Western and Eastern theology in the dispute over the communion of infants, it should be noted that both sides are funda- mentally intolerant to the custom of the other side, with the western side show- ing a slightly higher degree of tolerance. e allegation of misrepresentation in western arguments appears at most indirectly and the Florentine formula, although open also to diminishing interpretations, even proclaims the funda- mental equivalence of the two customs. For both parties, the basic principle of the dispute is presented in a different way, to which individual arguments are subordinate. Namely, the East defends the communion of infants in the name of fidelity to tradition, while the West defends its custom in the name of respect for sacred mysteries. In this situation, Western theology can at most proclaim the superiority of its own custom but it cannot accuse heresy of the traditional custom against it. e situation of eastern theology is more difficult in this respect because there are no equally important contraindications to accuse the oppos- ing side of heresy, so this accusation appears more easily and more o;en in it. The Union of Brest Period A;er the fall of Constantinople, the main area where western Christianity met or tried to meet the eastern was the Russian lands.